[dredds]

- he posted on sites which were considered targets. - he posted a manifesto online (it's been censored in NZ) - he livestreamed the act (also censored) - his attack has been referenced by subsequent attacks (this was his goal) - he wants to use the courts as a platform (our media has voluntarily agreed to censor proceedings) - he said his rights are being infringed by not having phone and other communication (his "rights" need to be weighed against all the dead and injured) - other groups want to politicize and publicize his agenda (should they be censored?)

His efforts to use the web as a platform for inciting hate and further violence led to our government's response. If the US President incites hate and violence via Twitter we would be having the same discussion no?

[55555]

The idea of censoring his manifesto is strange to me. You'd think people would just want to argue the points brought up in his manifesto on their merits and win mindshare that way.

[dredds]

We heard he cites Anders Breivik's manifesto in his own (i haven't read them) so the domino effect of self-radicalization is what concerns them i think. A bit like how we have laws against reporting on suicides cos they determined that suicides statistically increased when they were widely publicized in the past.

[roca]

How well is that working against the flat-earth and anti-vax communities?

[makomk]

Well, a good chunk of the US anti-vax movement seems to be ultra-Orthodox Jews: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/nyregion/measles-vaccine-... Their religous beliefs don't permit them to have unfettered Internet access because it'd expose them to corrupting ideas (like, say, the idea that vaccines are safe).

[roca]

And yet more than a good chunk of the anti-vax movement worldwide has unfettered Internet access. Ultra-orthodox Jews certainly aren't a factor here in New Zealand.

[makomk]

Yeah, it's almost like the Internet has no inherent effect one way or the other on the rise of anti-vax beliefs or something.

[rgbrenner]

If the US President incites hate and violence via Twitter we would be having the same discussion no?

No. We might be having a conversation about the inappropriateness of such comments, but we have no laws against hate speech. In fact, a sitting president can call for imminent violence against a person or group (which is illegal) and the only recourse would be impeachment or waiting until the next election (he can be prosecuted after his removal though). So there wouldn't be much we could do if the US President did call for violence.